On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Hal Hildebrand <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm unclear as to how what you suggest would solve the licensing issue. > Regardless of whether the "work" on the solution or not, the issue would > still remain that they would have to change their licensing. It's hard to > see why membership issues with the OSGi prevent them from doing so. > Clearly, if they change their licensing today, we could have a solution > tomorrow and I'm not sure how them not being a member of OSGi would prevent > any of that from happening.
Ok, I will let them know that you have volunteered to work the 2 RFPs inquestion into a "solution" in just one day. I am sure that both they, the OSGi Alliance CPEG would be utterly surprised... No? I don't like silly exaggerations like that one... Sorry, but I fail to see why EntityA have the 'obligation' to license IP1 for public use, for EntityB to take that IP1 and produce IP2 which are somewhat but not totally related. I would call it "at their discretion". If EntityA says that they are willing to produce IP2 together with EntityB, I consider it quite rude of EntityB saying "Why not just give me IP1, and I'll do IP2 for us all, since I don't let you play in my sandbox..." Sorry for the sarcasm... I am not arguing that Paremus should be a member, that's not the issue. The issue is that the Alliance can't get their act together to allow open development, which would benefit us all, but stick to "backroom agendas" and "toss over the wall". I know that it is not like that if you are a member, but it is definitely how it comes across to outsiders, the general community. Cheers Niclas -- http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java _______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
